Alarmingly, these were just some of the measures that colleges employed in an attempt to recruit would be-students after the Government made a late u-turn in its fee policy.

The reversal, which means adults on 'inactive' benefits will continue to receive fee remission, has been heralded by many as a victory for the sector and, most importantly of all, as a victory for widening participation and ensuring the most disadvantaged gain the education they so desperately need to turn their lives around.

But has anyone stopped to think of the consequences of such a change and, more importantly, one that came so late in the day?

I absolutely agree that the neediest in our society should be given the support they need to pull themselves out of poverty and on the road to prosperity. I question, however, whether the u-turn on adult fees was the best way of achieving this laudable aim.

The original decision was made in an attempt to direct scarce public funds at those who were actively seeking work and who would therefore benefit directly from fee remission. Whether or not we agree with the logic behind the original plan, the fact is decisions had been made and the impact of those decisions communicated to potential students. At that point some may well have decided the level of investment they would need to make in their education was beyond their financial means and, therefore, withdrew. The damage in terms of recruitment had been done.

By the time the Government reversed its decision, colleges had already printed their prospectuses and course literature, which immediately contained out-of-date information. We were left with no choice but to spend thousands of pounds communicating the changes – money better spent on teaching and learning.

Who can quantify the untold damage this change in policy has done to the credibility of the sector? Students don't understand that it was the Government that changed its mind – they simply think their local college hadn't got its house in order.

Despite this reversal, there is no extra funding for colleges – so the cost of granting additional fee remission must now be absorbed within our own budgets. Ironically, this may well mean we end up educating fewer adult learners than originally planned. Colleges have also had to spend much time and effort getting their own staff up-to-speed on the rule change.

There will be no money next year either, so that leaves me to ask: have we merely delayed the inevitable for another year? Far better we made the changes now and educate our adults about the value of education and the investment they are making in their future.

This leads me to my main concern. We are one of very few countries in the world where free education is seen as a 'right', including for those above the age of 16. Isn't it time we developed a culture where individuals value their education, in particular the opportunities it creates, and are prepared to pay for it?

This latest furore over adult fees makes me realise we still have a lot of work to do within the sector, let alone with our potential students, before we can truly say we have a culture that recognises that investing in your education is investing in your future. Maybe the introduction of FE loans may help but no doubt this will be one of the more controversial proposals in New Challenges, New Chances.

I am immensely proud of our sector and of the work colleges do each and every day to transform lives and communities. Introducing fees should not stop us from continuing to do this.

Asha Khemka OBE is principal and chief executive of Vision West Notts